JITENDRA YADAV AND 11 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7751 of 2026

Jitendra Yadav And 11 Others
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)            :   Pankaj Kumar Ojha, Vivek Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)       :   G.A.

Court No. - 74
               HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

1. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to inadvertence the
prayer has been wrongly mentioned.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to incorporated the
amendment application and correct the same during the course of hearing.

3. Heard, Pankaj Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri
Karunakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been filed to quash the impugned notice-cum- order dated
19.12.2025 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikandrarao, District
Hathras in Case No. 9302 of 2025, whereby order under Section 107/16 of
B.N.S.S./ 151 of Cr.P.C. has been passed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that impugned notice-cum-
order dated 19.12.2025 has been passed without considering the facts and
circumstances and position of law as well as without assigning any reason
for its satisfaction of the facts and circumstances of the case as required
under Sections 126, 135 of B.N.S.S. to issue notice. It is further submitted
that impugned notice-cum-order has been passed on printed proforma.

6. While assailing the impugned order, contention of learned counsel for
the applicant is that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has not applied judicial
mind in passing the order as the order has been made on a printed proforma,
in which the name of the accused, case crime number and Section has been
filled up by hand.

7.   Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of this Court
                                                          NA528 No. 7751 of 2026
                                2

in the Case of Siya Nand Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1994 Cri. LJ
1298 and also the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the cases of
Tavindar Kumar and another Vs. State reported in 1990 Cri. LJ 40 and
judgment of the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye Vs. S.D.M. Monghyr (2);
AIR 1971 SC 2486, wherein some guidelines have been laid down with
regard to issuing the notice under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C.

8. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and
another, JIC 2010 (1) 432, submission of the learned counsel for the
applicant is that the order impugned being on a printed proforma is clearly
without application of judicial mind and hence, is liable to be quashed on
this ground alone.

9. Learned A.G.A. has also admitted that the order impugned has been
passed on the printed proforma and therefore, keeping in view the decision
in the case of Ankit (supra) as well as the law laid down by the Supreme
Court, the Magistrate concerned may be directed to pass a fresh order.

10. I have considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for
the applicant and learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

11. The certified copy of the order summoning the accused has been
appended as Annexure-2 at page-27 of the paper book. From a perusal of the
above order, it is evident that it is a typed proforma where only information
of case number, name of parties, section, date and next date is to be filled by
Magistrate in handwriting. It appears that the blanks in the printed proforma
have been filled up by some court employee and the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Sikandrarao, District Hathras has thereafter just put his initial,
which leads to the conclusion that the Magistrate has passed the order in a
mechanical manner without application of judicial mind.

12. Despite law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court disapproving
such practice of passing orders on printed proforma. It is very painful and
unfortunate to see that applicant in the present case has been summoned by
the Executive Magistrate by an order in which blanks have been filled in on
a printed proforma without applying judicial mind. This type of order has
already been held unsustainable by this Court in the case of Ankit (supra)
relying on in a number of decisions of the Apex Court. The relevant portion
of the said decision, is extracted below:

      "8. … Although as held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Guptas
      & Anr V State of U.P. And Anr, 2008 (62) ACC 826, in which reference
      has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and
      Export Vs Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4) ACC 686 (SC), UP Pollution
                                                                                                  NA528 No. 7751 of 2026
                                                                      3

                                          Control Board Vs Mohan Meakins, 2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC): AIR 2000 SC
                                          1456 and Kanti Bhadra Vs State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) JIC 751 (SC):
                                          2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC), the Magistrate is not required to pass detailed
                                          reasoned order at the time of taking cognizance on the charge sheet, but
                                          it does not mean that order of taking cognizance can be passed by filling
                                          up the blanks on printed proforma. At the time of passing any judicial
                                          order including the order taking cognizance on the charge sheet, the
                                          Court is required to apply judicial mind and even the order of taking
                                          cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner. Therefore, the
                                          impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be sent
                                          back to the Court below for passing fresh order on the charge sheet
                                          after applying judicial mind."

                                    13. In view of the above, the conduct of the Sub Divisional Magistrate
                                    concerned in passing orders on printed proforma by filling up the blanks
                                    without application of judicial mind is objectionable and deserves to be
                                    deprecated. The summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious
                                    matter and the order must reflect that Sub Divisional Magistrate had applied
                                    his mind to the facts as well as law applicable thereto.

                                    14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the law laid
                                    down by the Supreme Court, the present application is allowed. The
                                    impugned impugned notice-cum- order dated 19.12.2025 passed by Sub-
                                    Divisional Magistrate, Sikandrarao, Hathras is, hereby, quashed. The Sub-
                                    Divisional Magistrate is directed to pass fresh order after applying the
                                    judicial mind.

                                    March 17, 2026
                                    Ishan
                                                                                        (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ISHAN JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad